They will object. Speeding is granted the same rights as owning a gun. In fact it is the same attitude: the government should not intrude on the private actions of its citizens except after they physically harm another. I can speed as long as I don't hurt anybody. I can carry a gun as long as I don't hurt anybody. This works for 99% of the population. But that 1%? He kills the 20 grade school kids at Uvalde or Sandy Hook. If the weapons are not allowed, the killing stops. Australia proved this. The USA proves the opposite. You are correct. The same is true for speeding. Cars go fast, bikers, pedestrians and legal speed drivers become victims. Does your speeding or weapon carrying rights overwhelm the right to life of the other. Sometimes the 99% has to accept limits to prevent that 1% (or less) from violating that right to life. Besides, and this is not my main point, you get a lot better mileage per gallon, or kilowatt, if you go slower. Perhaps this should be important too.
"If the weapons are not allowed, the killing stops. Australia proved this."
14 December 2025
"Mass shooting incident. Occurred at Bondi Beach in Sydney during a Hanukkah celebration. According to New South Wales Police 15 people were killed, and 40 were wounded. One of the perpetrators was killed in a shootout with police, while the other was injured and arrested."
13 April 2024
"Mass stabbing. Joel Cauchi entered Bondi Junction Westfield shopping centre where he stabbed multiple people before being shot by police. Five victims, four women and one man, died at the scene, while a sixth victim, a woman, died in hospital. The injured victims include a young child, whose mother was the sixth victim."
True. A point I should keep in mind. Though exceptions happen even in societies where gun ownership is restricted. The two at Bondi Beach qualifies for weapons in a much stricter ownership system, but they were still swayed by indoctrination. You can't prevent everything, but look at the data overall from the US and Australia and I think you will find that the point still holds. Reducing gun access reduces gun violence.
Correlatively, DJT is not an aberration; he is the natural consequence of these attitudes, which almost half of Americans will fight for until their behavior literally kills us all.
Design the road properly for the intended speed limit, the New Urbanists are good at this.
Look to Europe for design guidance that works and looks good...
eg narrow lanes, limit the number of lanes, put in transit lanes, put in bicycle lanes, use rumble strips, speed bumps, junction tables, chicanes, lane separation bollards/ raised dividers, plant trees, .... but dont make it gaudy (as is often the case in the USA) do it with style.
An initial 2 week driving license suspension would work wonders for those lacking attention.
Really strong piece connecting historical precedent to current policy. The 1923 Cincinnati example shows how "motordom" basically won the framing battle by redefining speed as inherent to cars rather than a controllable risk factor. I've seen similar rheotric in local debates where any speed managment gets labeled "anti-car" instead of pro-safety. The part about proactive vs reactive enforcement is key though, ISA prevents harm before it happens rather than punishing after.
So, when I first started reading, I wasn’t sure where you were going with this. But now I see you’re all for Intelligent Speed Assistance. I, too, think there is a need. It could certainly put a stop to high-speed chases and deadly high-speed-chase-related or caused crashes.
This reminds me of the legislation in the U.S. to require railroads to install a functioning Positive Train Control system that would prevent train-to-train collisions like the deadly one involving two trains in Chatsworth, California in 2008; a mishap where 25 people lost their lives with another 135 people sustaining injuries of varying severity. Or, prevent an overspeed derailment like the one in Burlington, Ontario, Canada that happened several years back where a Via Rail train ran through an apparently misaligned switch at 60 miles per hour. If I remember correctly, the turnout the switch controlled was limited to trains traveling through it at a maximum speed of 15 miles per hour, which means the train in question that entered that turnout was traveling at a speed four times above what that turnout was designed to safely handle. The engine of the derailed train was laying on its side when it crashed into a building abutting the track. There were three people aboard the locomotive at the time of the crash and, if I recall correctly, all three died. Positive train control in America as I understand it has since December 31, 2020, been installed and is operational on roughly 57,000 miles of track, less than half of the total track-route mileage, which, in this case, is approximately 140,000.
Lastly, I’m a bit puzzled by the presence of an article of this nature on a Substack having the title “Carbon Upfront!” That said, I’m glad you posted it because transportation safety is a topic area I’m very much interested in.
I chose the name because it was going to be the title of my book; i think it is time to change it but I can’t figure out what to change it to. Speed control makes perfect sense, cars are heavy machinery operated by people of all different capabilities and experience. It’s on trains, planes, e-bikes and scooters, everything but cars. There is no good reason for this exclusion.
Unless politicians are also mandated to use these (and do), it just becomes another way for govt. to control it's populace. In otherwords, it only applies to the everyday person and not the ruling elite, just as it in WA state.
They will object. Speeding is granted the same rights as owning a gun. In fact it is the same attitude: the government should not intrude on the private actions of its citizens except after they physically harm another. I can speed as long as I don't hurt anybody. I can carry a gun as long as I don't hurt anybody. This works for 99% of the population. But that 1%? He kills the 20 grade school kids at Uvalde or Sandy Hook. If the weapons are not allowed, the killing stops. Australia proved this. The USA proves the opposite. You are correct. The same is true for speeding. Cars go fast, bikers, pedestrians and legal speed drivers become victims. Does your speeding or weapon carrying rights overwhelm the right to life of the other. Sometimes the 99% has to accept limits to prevent that 1% (or less) from violating that right to life. Besides, and this is not my main point, you get a lot better mileage per gallon, or kilowatt, if you go slower. Perhaps this should be important too.
"If the weapons are not allowed, the killing stops. Australia proved this."
14 December 2025
"Mass shooting incident. Occurred at Bondi Beach in Sydney during a Hanukkah celebration. According to New South Wales Police 15 people were killed, and 40 were wounded. One of the perpetrators was killed in a shootout with police, while the other was injured and arrested."
13 April 2024
"Mass stabbing. Joel Cauchi entered Bondi Junction Westfield shopping centre where he stabbed multiple people before being shot by police. Five victims, four women and one man, died at the scene, while a sixth victim, a woman, died in hospital. The injured victims include a young child, whose mother was the sixth victim."
True. A point I should keep in mind. Though exceptions happen even in societies where gun ownership is restricted. The two at Bondi Beach qualifies for weapons in a much stricter ownership system, but they were still swayed by indoctrination. You can't prevent everything, but look at the data overall from the US and Australia and I think you will find that the point still holds. Reducing gun access reduces gun violence.
"Reducing gun access reduces gun violence."
Is self defense with a gun considered violence.
Elegantly stated: USA in a nutshell.
Correlatively, DJT is not an aberration; he is the natural consequence of these attitudes, which almost half of Americans will fight for until their behavior literally kills us all.
Design the road properly for the intended speed limit, the New Urbanists are good at this.
Look to Europe for design guidance that works and looks good...
eg narrow lanes, limit the number of lanes, put in transit lanes, put in bicycle lanes, use rumble strips, speed bumps, junction tables, chicanes, lane separation bollards/ raised dividers, plant trees, .... but dont make it gaudy (as is often the case in the USA) do it with style.
An initial 2 week driving license suspension would work wonders for those lacking attention.
Really strong piece connecting historical precedent to current policy. The 1923 Cincinnati example shows how "motordom" basically won the framing battle by redefining speed as inherent to cars rather than a controllable risk factor. I've seen similar rheotric in local debates where any speed managment gets labeled "anti-car" instead of pro-safety. The part about proactive vs reactive enforcement is key though, ISA prevents harm before it happens rather than punishing after.
One needs to remind people that driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right. If they are speeding that bad, take away their license.
So, when I first started reading, I wasn’t sure where you were going with this. But now I see you’re all for Intelligent Speed Assistance. I, too, think there is a need. It could certainly put a stop to high-speed chases and deadly high-speed-chase-related or caused crashes.
This reminds me of the legislation in the U.S. to require railroads to install a functioning Positive Train Control system that would prevent train-to-train collisions like the deadly one involving two trains in Chatsworth, California in 2008; a mishap where 25 people lost their lives with another 135 people sustaining injuries of varying severity. Or, prevent an overspeed derailment like the one in Burlington, Ontario, Canada that happened several years back where a Via Rail train ran through an apparently misaligned switch at 60 miles per hour. If I remember correctly, the turnout the switch controlled was limited to trains traveling through it at a maximum speed of 15 miles per hour, which means the train in question that entered that turnout was traveling at a speed four times above what that turnout was designed to safely handle. The engine of the derailed train was laying on its side when it crashed into a building abutting the track. There were three people aboard the locomotive at the time of the crash and, if I recall correctly, all three died. Positive train control in America as I understand it has since December 31, 2020, been installed and is operational on roughly 57,000 miles of track, less than half of the total track-route mileage, which, in this case, is approximately 140,000.
Lastly, I’m a bit puzzled by the presence of an article of this nature on a Substack having the title “Carbon Upfront!” That said, I’m glad you posted it because transportation safety is a topic area I’m very much interested in.
I chose the name because it was going to be the title of my book; i think it is time to change it but I can’t figure out what to change it to. Speed control makes perfect sense, cars are heavy machinery operated by people of all different capabilities and experience. It’s on trains, planes, e-bikes and scooters, everything but cars. There is no good reason for this exclusion.
Unless politicians are also mandated to use these (and do), it just becomes another way for govt. to control it's populace. In otherwords, it only applies to the everyday person and not the ruling elite, just as it in WA state.